“I am going to predict right now that we will have a smoking gun,” Geragos told CNN’s Anderson Cooper on “AC360.” “There are people who are not going to get into an arbitration proceeding and they are not going to lie. They are not going to lie. They are going to tell the truth and they’re going to say what happened. They were told no, you’re not going to hire him.”

Kaepernick’s attorney Mark Geragos on collusion grievance filing: “We have a high degree of confidence that this will be able to be proved” pic.twitter.com/BmrroYSTrh

Geragos also thinks that Kaepernick is at least one of the top 30 quarterbacks in the game, which is a reason why he believes the owners colluded against him.

However, on Sunday, I noted this NFL.com article points out the exact opposite (emphasis mine):

Since he led San Francisco to its first Super Bowl appearance in 18 years in 2012, Kaepernick’s production has tapered off significantly. The quarterback’s already-low completion percentage dipped well below 60 percent in 2015 and 2016 and he has struggled to make strong throws past 10 yards and outside the numbers.

His off-field actions aside, the economic interest in Kaepernick from a football standpoint will be an intriguing sub-sub-plot to free agency. He hasn’t produced enough consistently to be a starting quarterback in 2017 for any team that’s not rebuilding, but his skill-set will still be valuable in a backup role.

Kaepernick visited with the Seattle Seahawks, but head coach Pete Carroll passed on him because he believed Kaepernick wanted to be a starter and not a backup.

Employment law attorney Michael Elkins spoke to The New York Daily News about Kaepernick’s case and called it a mistake:

Without hard evidence, such as an email or text message between at least two NFL owners or a team and the league, Kaepernick faces an almost impossible legal challenge here.

“Kaepernick has a really tough road to hoe to make this case out. Really tough,” said Elkins, who has exclusively represented management throughout his career. “Unless he comes up with some smoking-gun email or text message, which isn’t going to exist because these owners are smart people, it’s going to be very tough.”

He’s got to prove that at least two teams “got together and agreed not to sign him because of his political viewpoint. He’s going to need some direct evidence of that,” Elkins said.

Elkins said that the case only lists “14 points of circumstantial evidence” and simple saying that he is better than this backup or that backup or even a starter is not going to prove his case. Elkins also laughed off the claim that the comments made by Trump as “sex appeal” since the president “exists outside of the CBA [collective bargaining agreement] and legally holds no sway in the NFL universe.”

In a speech in Alabama, Trump said that “sons of bitches” who do not stand for the anthem should be fired.

Even if this “smoking gun” exists, it does not mean that Kaepernick will receive a job. The win would only entitle him “to double financial charges, based on the contracts other QBs have signed this year.”

Here’s the kicker: KAEPERNICK WOULD BE PLAYING THIS SEASON IF HE DID NOT OPT OUT OF HIS CONTRACT LAST MARCH! The contract gave him $16.9 million plus bonuses for 2017.

Plus, does anyone honestly think any team will be willing to give Kaepernick a chance after this, whether he wins or loses?! Yeah, me either.

This is no different than the family lawyer telling his male client, “I am very confident that you are going to win full custody of your kids!!!” Right before they march into court and he gets 2 days per month supervised visitation plus payment of mega alimony for the next 18 years.

Also, note that Geragos showed us a big “tell” in his remarks. He said “I predict right now that we will have a smoking gun…” He did NOT say “we already have that smoking gun!”

So, quite clearly, this suit is a giant fishing expedition, just hoping that someone sympathetic will come up with some evidence that he has fantasized must exist.

I thought quarterbacks were supposed to be smart. Kaepernick is a walking box of rocks. This is the play he called, and now he wants everyone else to cover for him: other players, the union, a string of lawyers. Smells like B.S. to me

A dangerous place to be: between Michael Moore and a buffet line or between Gloria Allred or Mark Geragos and a room full of cameras and microphones. They are big time attention whores, and unfortunately, it works for them in creating a perception of prominence in the minds of laymen viewers.

Always good when your own hired mouthpiece lawyer is willing to say publicly that he believes in your case. The alternative is for him to say that Kaepernick doesn’t have a prayer. I think the lawyer’s guild frowns on that sort of thing…

‘I predict they will XXX’. Funny, you know, I was under the impression that good lawyers didn’t ask a question in court unless they were ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN of the answer.

This is just the second phase of the Kaeperdick ‘try and guilt an owner into hiring him’ campaign.

The dumbass actually believed his girlfriend’s bullshit that he was a hot commodity so he walked away from a multi-million dollar deal with the 49ers, and found out that nobody wanted to deal with a media headache for a crappy quarterback.

Now honestly he is better, at least on paper, than some of the current backup QB’s already on the bench or that were hired. However, if you have a choice between 2 guys that are within a couple of %’s of each other in stat’s which one would you choose?

It might be different if they had fired him over his protest, but they didn’t he signed and left of his own volition. Had he not gone free agent and walked away from his contract he would still be employed.

Mark is blowing smoke, to keep his client deluded and his backers paying his fee.
The League is represented by the best lawyers, including Covington & Burling, Eric Holder’s firm and DC’s prestigious “white shoe” firm. The NFL is protected by antitrust immunity, and guards assiduously to avoid losing that protection. It’s members and their staff are given regular instruction on the dangers of collusion. Mark has nothing, and will find nothing in discovery. this is all PR for the NFLPA, the Colin the pima donna.

OK, let us say that Kaepernick proves “collusion” and forces some team to hire him [and by extension owners will lose all control over who they hire]. That just means that team will go bankrupt faster than the other teams in the NFL. And for those of us who are not watching, not buying tickets, etc. it will not matter because the collapse of professional football anyway.

What if they did get together and agree not to hire him? How does that entitle him to anything? If a player beats his wife, or expresses white supremacist views, and all the teams agree not to hire him, is there some law against that?